HHS Issues Rule on Payment System for Skilled Nursing Facilities
Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) for FY 2016, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, and Staffing Data Collection
A Rule by the
Publication Date:
Agencies:
Entry Type: Rule
Action: Final rule.
Document Citation: 80 FR 46389
Page: 46389 -46477 (89 pages)
CFR: 42 CFR 483
Agency/Docket Number: CMS-1622-F
RIN: 0938-AS44
Document Number: 2015-18950
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-18950
Action
Final Rule.
Summary
This final rule updates the payment rates used under the prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for fiscal year (FY) 2016. In addition, it specifies a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure, as well as adopts that measure for a new SNF Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program, and includes a discussion of SNF VBP Program policies we are considering for future rulemaking to promote higher quality and more efficient health care for
DATES:
Effective date: The provisions of this final rule are effective on
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charlayne Van, (410) 786-8659, for information related to skilled nursing facility quality reporting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Certain Tables Exclusively Through the Internet on the CMS Web Site
As discussed in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22044), tables setting forth the Wage Index for Urban Areas Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas and the Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor Market Areas for Rural Areas are no longer published in the
Readers who experience any problems accessing any of these online SNF PPS wage index tables should contact
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose
This final rule updates the SNF prospective payment rates for FY 2016 as required under section 1888(e)(4)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act). It also responds to section 1888(e)(
B. Summary of Major Provisions
In accordance with sections 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5) of the Act, the federal rates in this final rule reflect an update to the rates that we published in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628), which reflects the SNF market basket index as adjusted by the applicable forecast error correction and by the multifactor productivity adjustment for FY 2016. We are also finalizing a SNF all-cause all-condition hospital readmission measure under section 1888(g)(1) of the Act, as well as adopting that measure for a new SNF VBP Program as required under section 1888(h) of the Act. We are also implementing a new QRP for SNFs under section 1888(e)(6) of the Act, which was added by section 2(c)(4) of the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (IMPACT Act, Pub. L. 113-185).
For payment determinations beginning with FY 2018, we are adopting measures meeting three quality domains specified in section 1899B(c)(1) of the Act: Functional status, skin integrity, and incidence of major falls.
In addition, we are adding new language at 42 CFR, part 483 to implement section 1128I(g) of the Act. Specifically, beginning on
C. Summary of Cost and Benefits
Provision description ..... Total transfers
FY 2016 SNF PPS payment rate update ..... The overall economic impact of this final rule will be an estimated increase of
II. Background on SNF PPS
A. Statutory Basis and Scope
As amended by section 4432 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA, Pub. L. 105-33), section 1888(e) of the Act provides for the implementation of a PPS for SNFs. This methodology uses prospective, case-mix adjusted per diem payment rates applicable to all covered SNF services defined in section 1888(e)(2)(A) of the Act. The SNF PPS is effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after
Section 215(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA, Pub. L. 113-93, enacted on
B. Initial Transition for the SNF PPS
Under sections 1888(e)(1)(A) and 1888(e)(11) of the Act, the SNF PPS included an initial, three-phase transition that blended a facility-specific rate (reflecting the individual facility's historical cost experience) with the federal case-mix adjusted rate. The transition extended through the facility's first three cost reporting periods under the PPS, up to and including the one that began in FY 2001. Thus, the SNF PPS is no longer operating under the transition, as all facilities have been paid at the full federal rate effective with cost reporting periods beginning in FY 2002. As we now base payments for SNFs entirely on the adjusted federal per diem rates, we no longer include adjustment factors under the transition related to facility-specific rates for the upcoming FY.
C. Required Annual Rate Updates
Section 1888(e)(4)(E) of the Act requires the SNF PPS payment rates to be updated annually. The most recent annual update occurred in a final rule that set forth updates to the SNF PPS payment rates for FY 2015 (79 FR 45628,
Section 1888(e)(
The unadjusted federal per diem rates to be applied to days of covered SNF services furnished during the upcoming FY.
The case-mix classification system to be applied for these services during the upcoming FY.
The factors to be applied in making the area wage adjustment for these services.
Along with other revisions discussed later in this preamble, this final rule provides the required annual updates to the per diem payment rates for SNFs for FY 2016.
III. Analysis of and Responses to Public Comments on the FY 2016 SNF PPS Proposed Rule
In response to the publication of the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule, we received 53 timely public comments from individuals, providers, corporations, government agencies, private citizens, trade associations, and major organizations. The following are brief summaries of each proposed provision, a summary of the public comments that we received related to that proposal, and our responses to the comments.
A. General Comments on the FY 2016 SNF PPS Proposed Rule
In addition to the comments we received on specific proposals contained within the proposed rule (which we address later in this final rule), commenters also submitted the following, more general observations on the SNF PPS and SNF care generally. A discussion of these comments, along with our responses, appears below.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding the recent evolution of SNF care, stating that, in the commenter's opinion, while resident acuity is increasing, facilities worry more about money than about actual resident care. The commenter further stated that fewer staff hours should be focused on determining a resident's particular
Response: We appreciate the commenter raising these points and are mindful of the commenter's concern regarding the apparent tension between profit and resident care. We also agree that SNF care appropriately should focus on the resident's unique characteristics and goals, and note that RUG determinations should be based on the type and amount of nursing and therapy care required by the resident, rather than on facility budget considerations. We will consider the concerns the commenter raised as we identify future areas for analysis and program monitoring.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we address the need for CMS to broaden the categories of healthcare professionals who may order patient diets. The commenter stated that such a change would improve patient health and allow SNFs to respond more quickly to resident nutritional needs.
Response: We appreciate this comment, but would note as we did in the FY 2015 SNF PPS final rule (79 FR 45630) that the specific issues the commenter raised about who may prescribe diets for SNF residents do not relate to payment policy, but rather to certification standards for long-term care facilities more generally. Therefore, while we once again note that such comments lie outside of the scope of this final rule, we will share them with the relevant CMS staff that works on survey and certification issues.
Comment: Several commenters made comments related to potential refinements or revisions of the existing SNF PPS. Some commenters expressed concern regarding compensation for non-therapy ancillary services, with one commenter stating specifically that the SNF PPS emphasizes therapy services and deemphasizes the care needs for medically complex residents, particularly in hospital-based SNFs. A second commenter stated that the current RUG system does not appropriately capture the intensity or cost of services for residents in certain non-therapy RUG groups, most notably those resident living with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Both commenters urged CMS to revise the SNF PPS to account for the potentially increased intensity or cost of services for medically complex residents, some of which may result from the provision of non-therapy ancillary services. One commenter expressed a "growing impatience" with CMS's lack of progress in implementing a revised SNF PPS and urged CMS to move forward with a revised PPS design or provide a timeline for when such revisions will be ready given that the flaws with the current system are already well known. A different commenter expressed support for CMS's current efforts to revise the SNF PPS, while at the same time cautioning CMS to proceed gradually by considering an approach that would transition to a revised PPS design over time.
Response: We appreciate the commenters raising these points and share the commenters' interest in exploring ways to revise the SNF PPS that may improve payment policy as well as promote appropriate resident care. We believe that our SNF payment model research (http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SNFPPS/therapyresearch.html) will help us establish a strong basis for examining potential improvements and refinements to the overall SNF PPS, most notably given that we recently expanded the scope of this research to focus not only on therapy payment but nursing and non-therapy ancillary payments as well. With regard to comments on the overall approach CMS is taking in developing a revised PPS design, and specifically, the two comments that presented contrasting views on the pace of our progress, we would agree with the commenter who urged a certain degree of caution in moving to a revised SNF PPS. While we also agree that many of the issues with the current system are well known at this point, we believe that arriving at appropriate solutions to issues of this complexity will, of necessity, entail an investment of time and effort that goes considerably beyond simply identifying the issues themselves. That said, we do believe that we should continue to move as quickly as possible to address the issues with the existing SNF PPS design, though without compromising the overall integrity of our research and analysis for the sake of time. We also welcome additional comments and feedback on this research, which may be submitted to: [email protected].
Comment: One commenter raised a concern regarding the potential impact of current Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment rules and policies during facility audits of completed MDS assessments. Specifically, the commenter stated that during an audit of assessments completed by a given facility, it might be discovered that correcting a given error (for example, an error in the number of therapy minutes coded on a given assessment) also means that a Change-of-Therapy (COT) Other Medicare-Required Assessment (OMRA) may have been missed during that timeframe when the original error occurred. Due to the missed assessment policy outlined in Chapters 2 and 6 of the MDS 3.0 manual, this could mean that the days associated with that missed assessment could be considered provider liable, which could have a significant financial impact on the facility. The commenter recommended that CMS re-evaluate the potentially punitive impact of not being able to complete an MDS after the resident's
Response: The consequences associated with coding errors and the use of audits to identify these errors are necessary to ensure that SNFs take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that accurate information is coded on the MDS. While we appreciate that errors are always possible, we do not believe that this is sufficient to warrant a change in policy at this time. We will continue to consider this issue as part of our ongoing evaluation of potential refinements and improvements to the overall SNF PPS.
B. SNF PPS Rate Setting Methodology and FY 2016 Update
1. Federal Base Rates
Under section 1888(e)(4) of the Act, the SNF PPS uses per diem federal payment rates based on mean SNF costs in a base year (FY 1995) updated for inflation to the first effective period of the PPS. We developed the federal payment rates using allowable costs from hospital-based and freestanding SNF cost reports for reporting periods beginning in FY 1995. The data used in developing the federal rates also incorporated a Part B add-on, which is an estimate of the amounts that, prior to the SNF PPS, would have been payable under Part B for covered SNF services furnished to individuals during the course of a covered Part A stay in a SNF.
In developing the rates for the initial period, we updated costs to the first effective year of the PPS (the 15-month period beginning
2. SNF Market Basket Update
a. SNF Market Basket Index
Section 1888(e)(5)(A) of the Act requires us to establish a SNF market basket index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered SNF services. Accordingly, we have developed a SNF market basket index that encompasses the most commonly used cost categories for SNF routine services, ancillary services, and capital-related expenses. We use the SNF market basket index, adjusted in the manner described below, to update the federal rates on an annual basis. In the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2014 (78 FR 47939 through 47946), we revised and rebased the market basket, which included updating the base year from FY 2004 to FY 2010.
For the FY 2016 proposed rule, the FY 2010-based SNF market basket growth rate was estimated to be 2.6 percent, which was based on the
b. Use of the SNF Market Basket Percentage
Section 1888(e)(5)(B) of the Act defines the SNF market basket percentage as the percentage change in the SNF market basket index from the midpoint of the previous FY to the midpoint of the current FY. For the federal rates set forth in this final rule, we use the percentage change in the SNF market basket index to compute the update factor for FY 2016. This is based on the IGI second quarter 2015 forecast (with historical data through the first quarter 2015) of the FY 2016 percentage increase in the FY 2010-based SNF market basket index for routine, ancillary, and capital-related expenses, which is used to compute the update factor in this final rule. As discussed in sections III.B.2.c. and III.B.2.d. of this final rule, this market basket percentage change is reduced by the applicable forecast error correction (as described in section 413.337(d)(2)) and by the multifactor productivity adjustment as required by section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act. Finally, as discussed in section II.B. of this final rule, we no longer compute update factors to adjust a facility-specific portion of the SNF PPS rates, because the initial three-phase transition period from facility-specific to full federal rates that started with cost reporting periods beginning in
c. Forecast Error Adjustment
As discussed in the
For FY 2014 (the most recently available FY for which there is final data), the estimated increase in the market basket index was 2.3 percentage points, while the actual increase for FY 2014 was 1.7 percentage points, resulting in the actual increase being 0.6 percentage point lower than the estimated increase. Accordingly, as the difference between the estimated and actual amount of change in the market basket index exceeds the 0.5 percentage point threshold and because, in this instance, the estimated amount of change exceeded the actual amount of change, the FY 2016 market basket percentage change of 2.3 percent would be adjusted downward by the forecast error correction of 0.6 percentage point, resulting in a SNF market basket increase of 1.7 percent, before application of the productivity adjustment discussed in this section. Table 1 shows the forecasted and actual market basket amounts for FY 2014.
Table 1--Difference Between the Forecasted and Actual Market Basket Increases for FY 2014
Index ..... Forecasted FY 2014 increase * ..... Actual FY 2014 increase ** ..... FY 2014 Difference
* Published in
** Based on the first quarter 2015 IGI forecast, with historical data through the fourth quarter 2014 (2010-based index).
SNF ..... 2.3 ..... 1.7 ..... -0.6
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the forecast error adjustment, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Comment: One commenter requested that in determining the need for a market basket forecast error adjustment in a given year, CMS consider recalculating the wage index budget neutrality factor (discussed in section III.B.4 of this final rule) based on more recent data and utilize any error found in the original budget neutrality factor calculation in CMS's determination of the need for a market basket forecast error adjustment.
Response: The commenter appears to be requesting a wage index budget neutrality factor error adjustment. However, we note at the outset that given the limited year-to-year variance in the wage index budget neutrality factor, any calculation of a budget neutrality factor error would likely represent an error of no more than a few thousandths of a percentage point, and thus we do not believe a wage index budget neutrality factor error adjustment would be necessary. Moreover, the market basket forecast error adjustment and the wage index budget neutrality factor serve fundamentally different purposes and involve entirely separate aspects of the SNF PPS. As such, we do not believe it would be appropriate to apply a wage index budget neutrality factor error to a market basket forecast error in order to determine if the market basket forecast error adjustment should be made.
Comment: One commenter stated that the forecast error adjustment of 0.6 percentage point represents a significant reduction and recommended that we implement the forecast error correction over a 2-year period.
Response: The forecast error adjustment is an essential aspect of ensuring that SNF PPS payments are as accurate as possible. Therefore, consistent with the way we have applied forecast error adjustments in the past, we do not believe that it is either appropriate or beneficial to the overall integrity of the SNF PPS to implement this adjustment over a multiple-year period.
d. Multifactor Productivity Adjustment
Section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act requires that, in FY 2012 (and in subsequent FYs), the market basket percentage under the SNF payment system as described in section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act is to be reduced annually by the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act, added by section 3401(a) of the Affordable Care Act, sets forth the definition of this productivity adjustment. The statute defines the productivity adjustment to be equal to the 10-year moving average of changes in annual economy-wide private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity (as projected by the Secretary for the 10-year period ending with the applicable FY, year, cost-reporting period, or other annual period) (the MFP adjustment).
MFP is derived by subtracting the contribution of labor and capital inputs growth from output growth. The projections of the components of MFP are currently produced by IGI, a nationally recognized economic forecasting firm with which CMS contracts to forecast the components of the market baskets and MFP. To generate a forecast of MFP, IGI replicates the MFP measure calculated by the BLS, using a series of proxy variables derived from IGI's U.S. macroeconomic models. In section III.F.3. of the FY 2012 SNF PPS final rule (76 FR 48527 through 48529), we identified each of the major MFP component series employed by the BLS to measure MFP as well as provided the corresponding concepts determined to be the best available proxies for the BLS series.
Beginning with the FY 2016 rulemaking cycle, the MFP adjustment is calculated using a revised series developed by IGI to proxy the aggregate capital inputs. Specifically, IGI has replaced the Real Effective Capital Stock used for Full Employment GDP with a forecast of BLS aggregate capital inputs recently developed by IGI using a regression model. This series provides a better fit to the BLS capital inputs as measured by the differences between the actual BLS capital input growth rates and the estimated model growth rates over the historical time period. Therefore, we are using IGI's most recent forecast of the BLS capital inputs series in the MFP calculations beginning with the FY 2016 rulemaking cycle. A complete description of the MFP projection methodology is available on our Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/MedicareProgramRatesStats/MarketBasketResearch.html. Although we discuss the IGI changes to the MFP proxy series in this final rule, in the future, when IGI makes changes to the MFP methodology, we will announce them on our Web site rather than in the annual rulemaking.
(1) Incorporating the Multifactor Productivity Adjustment Into the Market Basket Update
According to section 1888(e)(5)(A) of the Act, the Secretary shall establish a SNF market basket index that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in covered SNF services. Section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act, added by section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act, requires that for FY 2012 and each subsequent FY, after determining the market basket percentage described in section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act, the Secretary shall reduce such percentage by the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) (which we refer to as the MFP adjustment). Section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act further states that the reduction of the market basket percentage by the MFP adjustment may result in the market basket percentage being less than zero for a FY, and may result in payment rates under section 1888(e) of the Act for a FY being less than such payment rates for the preceding FY. Thus, if the application of the MFP adjustment to the market basket percentage calculated under section 1888(e)(5)(B)(i) of the Act results in an MFP-adjusted market basket percentage that is less than zero, then the annual update to the unadjusted federal per diem rates under section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii) of the Act would be negative, and such rates would decrease relative to the prior FY.
For the FY 2016 update, the MFP adjustment is calculated as the 10-year moving average of changes in MFP for the period ending
e. Market Basket Update Factor for FY 2016
Sections 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5)(i) of the Act require that the update factor used to establish the FY 2016 unadjusted federal rates be at a level equal to the market basket index percentage change. Accordingly, we determined the total growth from the average market basket level for the period of
As further explained in section III.B.2.c. of this final rule, as applicable, we adjust the market basket percentage change by the forecast error from the most recently available FY for which there is final data and apply this adjustment whenever the difference between the forecasted and actual percentage change in the market basket exceeds a 0.5 percentage point threshold. Since the forecasted FY 2014 SNF market basket percentage change exceeded the actual FY 2014 SNF market basket percentage change (FY 2014 is the most recently available FY for which there is final data) by more than 0.5 percentage point, the FY 2016 market basket percentage change of 2.3 percent would be adjusted downward by the applicable difference, which for FY 2014 is 0.6 percent.
In addition, for FY 2016, section 1888(e)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act requires us to reduce the market basket percentage change by the MFP adjustment (the 10-year moving average of changes in MFP for the period ending
A discussion of the general comments that we received on the market basket update factor for FY 2016, and our responses to those comments, appears below.
Comment: We received a number of comments in relation to applying the FY 2016 market basket update factor in the determination of the FY 2016 unadjusted federal per diem rates, with some commenters supporting its application in determining the FY 2016 unadjusted per diem rates, while others opposed its application. In their
Response: We appreciate all of the comments received on the proposed market basket update for FY 2016. In response to those comments which opposed our applying the FY 2016 market basket update factor in determining the FY 2016 unadjusted federal per diem rates, specifically MedPAC's proposal to eliminate the market basket update for SNFs and to implement a 4 percent reduction to the SNF PPS base rates, we would need statutory authority to act on these proposals at the current time.
Comment: One commenter stated that in their preliminary analyses, they observed a gap between the market basket and costs indexed to 2001 dollars (which we assume to mean an index based on 2001 dollars) which occurs even in rebasing years. They also observed a growing gap in non-labor components. They stated that further research is needed to understand the gap and they respectfully request that CMS engage in an ongoing dialogue.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's review of the SNF market basket methodology and look forward to the commenter's analysis. While any comments on the SNF market basket methodology, including any analyses, can be emailed to [email protected], we would be happy to engage in further dialogue on this issue.
Comment: One commenter noted that the weights used in calculating the market basket update should continue to use the most updated cost data available. They suggested that the market basket be revised and reweighted with greater frequency--on the same schedule as the hospital market basket, particularly given the new
Response: We appreciate the commenter's request for the SNF market basket to be revised and reweighted more frequently. As discussed in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule (70 FR 47387), we established a rebasing frequency of every 4 years for the hospital market basket, in accordance with section 404 of Public Law 108-173. We typically rebase and revise the SNF market baskets approximately every 6 years. Our prior analysis has shown that the major cost weights do not vary that much from year to year. However, we do understand the commenter's concern for more frequent rebasings given that any changes in the
Accordingly, for the reasons specified in this final rule and in the FY 2016 SNF PPS proposed rule (80 FR 22047 through 22049), we are applying the FY 2016 market basket increase factor, as adjusted by the forecast error correction and MFP adjustment as described above, in our determination of the FY 2016 SNF PPS unadjusted federal per diem rates. We used the SNF market basket, adjusted as described in this section, to adjust each per diem component of the federal rates forward to reflect the change in the average prices for FY 2016 from average prices for FY 2015. We would further adjust the rates by a wage index budget neutrality factor, described later in this section. Tables 2 and 3 reflect the updated components of the unadjusted federal rates for FY 2016, prior to adjustment for case-mix.
Table 2--FY 2016 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem Urban
Rate component ..... Nursing--case-mix ..... Therapy--case-mix ..... Therapy--non-case-mix ..... Non-case-mix
Per Diem Amount .....
Table 3--FY 2016 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem Rural Rate component ..... Nursing--case-mix ..... Therapy--case-mix ..... Therapy--non-case-mix ..... Non-case-mix
Per Diem Amount .....
3. Case-Mix Adjustment
Under section 1888(e)(4)(G)(i) of the Act, the federal rate also incorporates an adjustment to account for facility case-mix, using a classification system that accounts for the relative resource utilization of different patient types. The statute specifies that the adjustment is to reflect both a resident classification system that the Secretary establishes to account for the relative resource use of different patient types, as well as resident assessment data and other data that the Secretary considers appropriate. In the interim final rule with comment period that initially implemented the SNF PPS (63 FR 26252,
We note that case-mix classification is based, in part, on the beneficiary's need for skilled nursing care and therapy services. The case-mix classification system uses clinical data from the MDS to assign a case-mix group to each patient that is then used to calculate a per diem payment under the SNF PPS. As discussed in section III.C.1. of this final rule, the clinical orientation of the case-mix classification system supports the SNF PPS's use of an administrative presumption that considers a beneficiary's initial case-mix classification to assist in making certain SNF level of care determinations. Further, because the MDS is used as a basis for payment, as well as a clinical assessment, we have provided extensive training on proper coding and the time frames for MDS completion in our Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. For an MDS to be considered valid for use in determining payment, the MDS assessment must be completed in compliance with the instructions in the RAI Manual in effect at the time the assessment is completed. For payment and quality monitoring purposes, the RAI Manual consists of both the Manual instructions and the interpretive guidance and policy clarifications posted on the appropriate MDS Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/NursingHomeQualityInits/MDS30RAIManual.html.
In addition, we note that section 511 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA, Pub. L. 108-173) amended section 1888(e)(12) of the Act to provide for a temporary increase of 128 percent in the PPS per diem payment for any SNF residents with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), effective with services furnished on or after
Currently, we use the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 042 to identify those residents for whom it is appropriate to apply the AIDS add-on established by section 511 of the MMA. In this context, we note that the Department published a final rule in the
However, on
Under section 1888(e)(
Table 4--RUG-IV Case-Mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes URBAN
RUG-IV Category ..... Nursing index ..... Therapy index ..... Nursing component ..... Therapy component ..... Non-case mix therapy comp ..... Non-case mix component ..... Total rate
RUX ..... 2.67 ..... 1.87 .....
RUL ..... 2.57 ..... 1.87 ..... 439.91 ..... 241.12 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 768.39
RVX ..... 2.61 ..... 1.28 ..... 446.75 ..... 165.04 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 699.15
RVL ..... 2.19 ..... 1.28 ..... 374.86 ..... 165.04 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 627.26
RHX ..... 2.55 ..... 0.85 ..... 436.48 ..... 109.60 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 633.44
RHL ..... 2.15 ..... 0.85 ..... 368.02 ..... 109.60 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 564.98
RMX ..... 2.47 ..... 0.55 ..... 422.79 ..... 70.92 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 581.07
RML ..... 2.19 ..... 0.55 ..... 374.86 ..... 70.92 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 533.14
RLX ..... 2.26 ..... 0.28 ..... 386.84 ..... 36.10 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 510.30
RUC ..... 1.56 ..... 1.87 ..... 267.03 ..... 241.12 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 595.51
RUB ..... 1.56 ..... 1.87 ..... 267.03 ..... 241.12 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 595.51
RUA ..... 0.99 ..... 1.87 ..... 169.46 ..... 241.12 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 497.94
RVC ..... 1.51 ..... 1.28 ..... 258.47 ..... 165.04 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 510.87
RVB ..... 1.11 ..... 1.28 ..... 190.00 ..... 165.04 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 442.40
RVA ..... 1.10 ..... 1.28 ..... 188.29 ..... 165.04 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 440.69
RHC ..... 1.45 ..... 0.85 ..... 248.20 ..... 109.60 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 445.16
RHB ..... 1.19 ..... 0.85 ..... 203.69 ..... 109.60 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 400.65
RHA ..... 0.91 ..... 0.85 ..... 155.76 ..... 109.60 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 352.72
RMC ..... 1.36 ..... 0.55 ..... 232.79 ..... 70.92 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 391.07
RMB ..... 1.22 ..... 0.55 ..... 208.83 ..... 70.92 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 367.11
RMA ..... 0.84 ..... 0.55 ..... 143.78 ..... 70.92 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 302.06
RLB ..... 1.50 ..... 0.28 ..... 256.76 ..... 36.10 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 380.22
RLA ..... 0.71 ..... 0.28 ..... 121.53 ..... 36.10 ..... ..... 87.36 ..... 244.99
ES3 ..... 3.58 ..... ..... 612.79 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 717.13
ES2 ..... 2.67 ..... ..... 457.02 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 561.36
ES1 ..... 2.32 ..... ..... 397.11 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 501.45
HE2 ..... 2.22 ..... ..... 380.00 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 484.34
HE1 ..... 1.74 ..... ..... 297.84 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 402.18
HD2 ..... 2.04 ..... ..... 349.19 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 453.53
HD1 ..... 1.60 ..... ..... 273.87 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 378.21
HC2 ..... 1.89 ..... ..... 323.51 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 427.85
HC1 ..... 1.48 ..... ..... 253.33 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 357.67
HB2 ..... 1.86 ..... ..... 318.38 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 422.72
HB1 ..... 1.46 ..... ..... 249.91 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 354.25
LE2 ..... 1.96 ..... ..... 335.49 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 439.83
LE1 ..... 1.54 ..... ..... 263.60 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 367.94
LD2 ..... 1.86 ..... ..... 318.38 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 422.72
LD1 ..... 1.46 ..... ..... 249.91 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 354.25
LC2 ..... 1.56 ..... ..... 267.03 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 371.37
LC1 ..... 1.22 ..... ..... 208.83 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 313.17
LB2 ..... 1.45 ..... ..... 248.20 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 352.54
LB1 ..... 1.14 ..... ..... 195.13 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 299.47
CE2 ..... 1.68 ..... ..... 287.57 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 391.91
CE1 ..... 1.50 ..... ..... 256.76 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 361.10
CD2 ..... 1.56 ..... ..... 267.03 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 371.37
CD1 ..... 1.38 ..... ..... 236.21 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 340.55
CC2 ..... 1.29 ..... ..... 220.81 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 325.15
CC1 ..... 1.15 ..... ..... 196.85 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 301.19
CB2 ..... 1.15 ..... ..... 196.85 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 301.19
CB1 ..... 1.02 ..... ..... 174.59 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 278.93
CA2 ..... 0.88 ..... ..... 150.63 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 254.97
CA1 ..... 0.78 ..... ..... 133.51 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 237.85
BB2 ..... 0.97 ..... ..... 166.03 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 270.37
BB1 ..... 0.90 ..... ..... 154.05 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 258.39
BA2 ..... 0.70 ..... ..... 119.82 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 224.16
BA1 ..... 0.64 ..... ..... 109.55 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 213.89
PE2 ..... 1.50 ..... ..... 256.76 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 361.10
PE1 ..... 1.40 ..... ..... 239.64 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 343.98
PD2 ..... 1.38 ..... ..... 236.21 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 340.55
PD1 ..... 1.28 ..... ..... 219.10 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 323.44
PC2 ..... 1.10 ..... ..... 188.29 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 292.63
PC1 ..... 1.02 ..... ..... 174.59 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 278.93
PB2 ..... 0.84 ..... ..... 143.78 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 248.12
PB1 ..... 0.78 ..... ..... 133.51 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 237.85
PA2 ..... 0.59 ..... ..... 100.99 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 205.33
PA1 ..... 0.54 ..... ..... 92.43 ..... ..... 16.98 ..... 87.36 ..... 196.77
Table 5--RUG-IV Case-Mix Adjusted Federal Rates and Associated Indexes RURAL
RUG-IV Category ..... Nursing index ..... Therapy index ..... Nursing component ..... Therapy component ..... Non-case mix therapy comp ..... Non-case mix component ..... Total rate
RUX ..... 2.67 ..... 1.87 .....
RUL ..... 2.57 ..... 1.87 ..... 420.27 ..... 278.01 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 787.25
RVX ..... 2.61 ..... 1.28 ..... 426.81 ..... 190.30 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 706.08
RVL ..... 2.19 ..... 1.28 ..... 358.13 ..... 190.30 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 637.40
RHX ..... 2.55 ..... 0.85 ..... 417.00 ..... 126.37 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 632.34
RHL ..... 2.15 ..... 0.85 ..... 351.59 ..... 126.37 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 566.93
RMX ..... 2.47 ..... 0.55 ..... 403.92 ..... 81.77 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 574.66
RML ..... 2.19 ..... 0.55 ..... 358.13 ..... 81.77 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 528.87
RLX ..... 2.26 ..... 0.28 ..... 369.58 ..... 41.63 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 500.18
RUC ..... 1.56 ..... 1.87 ..... 255.11 ..... 278.01 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 622.09
RUB ..... 1.56 ..... 1.87 ..... 255.11 ..... 278.01 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 622.09
RUA ..... 0.99 ..... 1.87 ..... 161.89 ..... 278.01 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 528.87
RVC ..... 1.51 ..... 1.28 ..... 246.93 ..... 190.30 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 526.20
RVB ..... 1.11 ..... 1.28 ..... 181.52 ..... 190.30 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 460.79
RVA ..... 1.10 ..... 1.28 ..... 179.88 ..... 190.30 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 459.15
RHC ..... 1.45 ..... 0.85 ..... 237.12 ..... 126.37 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 452.46
RHB ..... 1.19 ..... 0.85 ..... 194.60 ..... 126.37 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 409.94
RHA ..... 0.91 ..... 0.85 ..... 148.81 ..... 126.37 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 364.15
RMC ..... 1.36 ..... 0.55 ..... 222.40 ..... 81.77 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 393.14
RMB ..... 1.22 ..... 0.55 ..... 199.51 ..... 81.77 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 370.25
RMA ..... 0.84 ..... 0.55 ..... 137.37 ..... 81.77 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 308.11
RLB ..... 1.50 ..... 0.28 ..... 245.30 ..... 41.63 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 375.90
RLA ..... 0.71 ..... 0.28 ..... 116.11 ..... 41.63 ..... ..... 88.97 ..... 246.71
ES3 ..... 3.58 ..... ..... 585.44 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 692.55
ES2 ..... 2.67 ..... ..... 436.63 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 543.74
ES1 ..... 2.32 ..... ..... 379.39 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 486.50
HE2 ..... 2.22 ..... ..... 363.04 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 470.15
HE1 ..... 1.74 ..... ..... 284.54 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 391.65
HD2 ..... 2.04 ..... ..... 333.60 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 440.71
HD1 ..... 1.60 ..... ..... 261.65 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 368.76
HC2 ..... 1.89 ..... ..... 309.07 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 416.18
HC1 ..... 1.48 ..... ..... 242.02 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 349.13
HB2 ..... 1.86 ..... ..... 304.17 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 411.28
HB1 ..... 1.46 ..... ..... 238.75 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 345.86
LE2 ..... 1.96 ..... ..... 320.52 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 427.63
LE1 ..... 1.54 ..... ..... 251.84 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 358.95
LD2 ..... 1.86 ..... ..... 304.17 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 411.28
LD1 ..... 1.46 ..... ..... 238.75 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 345.86
LC2 ..... 1.56 ..... ..... 255.11 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 362.22
LC1 ..... 1.22 ..... ..... 199.51 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 306.62
LB2 ..... 1.45 ..... ..... 237.12 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 344.23
LB1 ..... 1.14 ..... ..... 186.42 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 293.53
CE2 ..... 1.68 ..... ..... 274.73 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 381.84
CE1 ..... 1.50 ..... ..... 245.30 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 352.41
CD2 ..... 1.56 ..... ..... 255.11 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 362.22
CD1 ..... 1.38 ..... ..... 225.67 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 332.78
CC2 ..... 1.29 ..... ..... 210.95 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 318.06
CC1 ..... 1.15 ..... ..... 188.06 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 295.17
CB2 ..... 1.15 ..... ..... 188.06 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 295.17
CB1 ..... 1.02 ..... ..... 166.80 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 273.91
CA2 ..... 0.88 ..... ..... 143.91 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 251.02
CA1 ..... 0.78 ..... ..... 127.55 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 234.66
BB2 ..... 0.97 ..... ..... 158.62 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 265.73
BB1 ..... 0.90 ..... ..... 147.18 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 254.29
BA2 ..... 0.70 ..... ..... 114.47 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 221.58
BA1 ..... 0.64 ..... ..... 104.66 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 211.77
PE2 ..... 1.50 ..... ..... 245.30 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 352.41
PE1 ..... 1.40 ..... ..... 228.94 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 336.05
PD2 ..... 1.38 ..... ..... 225.67 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 332.78
PD1 ..... 1.28 ..... ..... 209.32 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 316.43
PC2 ..... 1.10 ..... ..... 179.88 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 286.99
PC1 ..... 1.02 ..... ..... 166.80 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 273.91
PB2 ..... 0.84 ..... ..... 137.37 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 244.48
PB1 ..... 0.78 ..... ..... 127.55 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 234.66
PA2 ..... 0.59 ..... ..... 96.48 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 203.59
PA1 ..... 0.54 ..... ..... 88.31 ..... ..... 18.14 ..... 88.97 ..... 195.42
Dated:
Acting Administrator,
Dated:
Secretary,
Editor's note: For the full-text of this document, click this link or copy it into your browser: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/08/04/2015-18950/medicare-program-prospective-payment-system-and-consolidated-billing-for-skilled-nursing-facilities.
-1219715
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News